E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Mafic Studios
This artist's conception shows a space-based satellite equipped with photoelectric cells, plus an antenna that transmits the generated power down to Earth as a microwave beam. Click on the image for a graphic presentation showing how space-based solar power works.
The idea of beaming down power from outer space has surfaced in science-fiction stories and government studies for decades now. Commercial deals have been struck, prototype satellites have been proposed, international initiatives have been announced. But has any real progress been made toward developing space-based solar power systems? That's what we're talking about this Sunday on "Virtually Speaking Science."
A few ventures have been working on the technological challenge of beaming power from Point A to Point B, in the form of laser beams or microwaves. In 2009, a company called LaserMotive won $900,000 in a NASA-backed competition for beam-powered robots. The same company proved last year that they could keep a quadrocopter up in the air all night, just by focusing a laser beam on its power-generating arrays. And in 2008, Managed Energy Technology demonstrated a wireless RF transmission system that could send a small-scale power beam over a distance of up to 90 miles.
But all these experiments are firmly grounded on planet Earth. Has anyone gotten to the point of building the hardware for beaming experiments in outer space?
"None of them that I know of is at the point of turning steel," said Air Force Col. M.V. "Coyote" Smith, who'll be our guest on Sunday's show. Smith spearheaded a 2007 study for the Defense Department that laid out a scenario for the military use of space-based solar power, and made a follow-up proposal for a power-beaming satellite project called "One Lightbulb."
The idea was to beam enough power from space to make just one little LED light shine. Smith figured that $10 million would be enough to go ahead with the satellite project and learn how to overcome the technological as well as the international regulatory hurdles that bigger satellites might face. But the Pentagon didn't go for the idea.
"It's a new mission area," Smith explained, "and in this austere budget era, it's difficult to attract a sponsor organization."
For now, Smith is pinning his hopes on small-scale commercial ventures to get the ball rolling. "I think what you're going to see is that the commercial community is going to step up to the plate and do minor studies that would bait the interest," he told me.
What do you think? Will PG&E's customers be getting some of their electricity from space by 2016, as the California-based Solaren venture promised a couple of years ago? Or will space solar power stay in the realm of science fiction for decades to come? Tune in our show on your computer at 8 p.m. ET Sunday, or join the studio audience in the Second Life virtual world. (To get there, here's the SLurl.)
Heck, you can even watch the Oscars on TV while you're listening to "Virtually Speaking Science" on the computer. My Second Life avatar is probably better-looking than some of the actors you'll be seeing. Wish I could say the same thing for my First Life face.
Update for 12:35 a.m. Feb. 28: If you missed our chat about space solar power, you missed a humdinger ... including the premiere of our new cosmic theme song, written by yours truly and performed by Rocker Scientist James Emley. Fortunately, you can download the hourlong podcast at BlogTalkRadio.com. Stay tuned for our next "Virtually Speaking Science" show on March 13, when the subjects will be NASA's mission to Pluto as well as suborbital spaceflight and scientific research.
More about space solar power:
- Space solar power crowd bets on Obama
- Controversy flares over space power plan
- How do you make space power pay?
- Interactive: Harvesting energy from orbit
My co-host on "Virtually Speaking Science" is Robin Snelson of the Space Studies Institute. Listen to the podcast from our Feb. 13 show, which featured Tim Pickens, team leader of the Rocket City Space Pioneers. And stay tuned for our program about Pluto and suborbital spaceflight on March 13, the 81st anniversary of the announcement of Pluto's discovery.
Join the Cosmic Log community by clicking the "like" button on our Facebook page or by following msnbc.com science editor Alan Boyle as b0yle on Twitter. To learn more about Alan Boyle's book on Pluto and the search for planets, check out the website for "The Case for Pluto."
Leave a Comment:
The two primary obstacles to space solar power are protecting the orbiting facilities from solar surface storm events (usually referred to as space weather) which could damage these large devices, and overcoming the general inability of the majority of people to comprehend the potential long term benefit of embarking on the construction of such a system. Princeton physicist O’Neil proposed this energy solution back in the seventies, but by the time a popular movement arises to initiate its construction, the world will have descended into such a state of chaos, it may be too late. It would require a “pragmatic space program” to robotically mine lunar materials to build these large orbiting facilities - which means redirecting billions now used to build armaments to secure the international petroleum based system. Too bad this wasn’t seriously considered twenty years ago and the technical groundwork laid, but we have been fooled into thinking that these kinds of projects are for some generation centuries in the future.
You didn't mention the economics of such a space-based power system, or the overall net efficiency. Land -based power plants come out to about $1,000 per installed kilowatt, give or take. A space based system, last I checked (several years ago) was somewhere around a million dollars per installed kilowatt. The only way this kind of power plant would happen is with a massive government subsidy, and we're talking about huge amounts of money here that would have to be siphoned away from other space activities.
Space-based power plants remain a stupid idea, and will stay that way until the cost per pound of getting stuff into orbit decreases by at least a couple orders of magnitude.
There is no incentive to reduce the cost to build these because we are not using them.
The construction of a space-based solar power system would be extremely expensive to begin, but would decrease substantially as the lunar mining and construction facilities evolve. Let’s face it, this isn’t building a coal, nuclear plant or oil refinery. The question becomes: is it really a “stupid idea” relative to the many trillions invested in the current system. It is a long term solution. The sun will be there long after the petroleum runs out. Further, the result of the enterprise would be an industrial capacity off of the planet’s surface. It is interesting that the economic obstacles are the criticism. If only that argument were applied to the present system where a massive military machine is needed to protect the fossil fuel-oriented energy supply, while the eco system is destroyed, which of course is completely cost-free.
didn't we just go through this? What? they keep forgetin' about the inverse square law? Ok for them to heat up the atmosphere, but no one else? at power levels incomprehensible for a normal optical engineer well versed in the impossibilities of perfect collimination? I mean I hate to be a naysayer but what if the beam gets diverted by anything? a seagull? a meteor? a wayward plane? a slip of the operators joystick? and just which shuttle do we deploy to go up and fix it when something goes wrong? are the japanese done with their little parallel experiment yet? see any of that data? apply for your permits with the galactic comission on energetic emission? testy bunch they are....save californias overburdened tax payers from being fleeced by more energy scams already, might as well build them another fission plant or two....IN ARIZONA!!!....what is with this planet and energy anyways?...bunch of control freaks over food and energy...cut it out and get lost already. I don't like fissionable any more than the next guy, but of places, arizona has plenty of desert to operate a n plant underground in, the dino bones won't care, there already nuetre-ated....why protreate people from above? guess they missed that story on gamma rays in the upper atmospher already huh?
Your objections have been answered again and again and again... how about you go read up and then come back to join the conversation once you're informed.
And if we we wait until the energy we currently use costs too much, we might not have the money to invest in something new. The time to invest (which may be past) is when the profits are coming in and you have extra money to finance new ideas, not wait until all the money has dried up or been distributed to stockholders who are now retired on a beach and soaking up all the solar energy they need.
The US should have used all those funds that were coming in post war and during the baby boom era to invest in the future rather than BMWs and Starbucks.
Our shuttles are down to their last flights. By the end of this year, we won't have a capability to launch large payloads or do assembly in space any longer. If space solar power is developed, the Russians or the Chinese will have to do it. But with conventional nuclear power so much less expensive than solar, it hardly seems worth anyone's effort to pursue this pipedream.
The shuttle didn't deliver "large" payloads. At best, medium payloads to low orbit. Any heavy lifiting has always been done with rockets, which also handle high orbital needs of any size. The suttle booster rockets individually can put more into orbit once you remove the mass of the shuttle and fuel tank.
From my experience, not a single experimenter or serious proposal of space solar power has ever even acknowledged or referenced one particular installation that does have "bent metal" and represents some significant experience for real world applications instead of fiction: The International Space Station. It produces about 100 kilowatts of power while it is in the sun... about the size of a small municipal power plant here on Earth. When you start getting to those larger energy volumes, things start to change and the engineers who built the ISS modules had to certainly account for the voltages and power requirements coming from that much energy being distributed in space.
Nobody even references the ISS development. If they would say "we will improve upon the ISS design" or something similar, I'd take them a bit more seriously. It also is enough extra energy that a short test from the ISS would certainly be an excellent platform in terms of at least testing something in space that may have access to a significant power source. Sure, most of the energy produced by the ISS power system is consumed in the station, but if the experiment is important enough they certainly could power down some of the other experiments for a short time at least to see if some transmitting system could work.
Of course a reason to want to avoid a mention of the ISS and its power system is cost: If you use the deployment costs of setting up the power system on that outpost, you would find that the economics of deploying something into space simply aren't there. It becomes a good demonstration for why it is a futile effort in the short term to be able to practically harvest energy in space for use here on the Earth. As a means to obtain energy for use in space, solar panels certainly make sense and are commonly used... but that isn't the same thing and the cost per kilowatt-hour is insanely expensive based on nearly any metric that you can think of.
If, and this is a big if, the cost for launching something into orbit goes down significantly, it may enter the realm of something possible... perhaps. This is even presuming that the energy transmission issues are even tested and demonstrated to work regardless of the cost. For niche application such as what the military is looking at where paying $1000 per kilowatt hour to an isolated location is worth the cost and effort, it may be an alternative over paying for a C-130 transport to carry a payload of diesel fuel over 10,000 miles and air drop that load into rugged terrain where the ability to even recover that fuel much less the generators necessary to deliver that as electricity is so expensive that the logistical problems start to look attractive by moving into space. Otherwise, it is science fiction.
They need to re-think solar energy on the ground , first .
Every few days , I look to see if there is a new way to use solar panels . They've been working on solar cells for fifty years . The two main ways they want to use solar panels , is . Put them on a roof or put them on a stick . Please try and re-think these ideas .
I haven't even put my mind to this and I've got a dozen ideas .
The problem isn't making the solar panels, it is the cost of getting them into space that is so darn expensive that they might as well be made of pure gold or platinum. The current rule of thumb is about $10,000 per kilogram (more or less) just to get it to "low-earth orbit" (where the ISS and Space Shuttle are at). To a higher orbit like a geo-synchronous orbit that some of the space solar power farms have been promising, it costs another 5-10 times that cost. The economics of getting this to work simply isn't there until the price of putting something into orbit drops significantly.
This brings up another good question: are these guys thinking about three geo-syncronous satellites and three stations on the ground? Or are they thinking of one fixed position satellite and three stations on the ground?
If they use geo-synchronous satellites then they'll need three (or more) to provide constant power. If they make one fixed position they can save the cost of two satellites.
I think there are enough questions here to determine if this is an actual answer or a cool idea. At the cost of $10M you could fund any one of the several, more promising, cold fusion experiments to fruition. I hope we are not grasping at straws here. We don't have that kind of time nor that kind of money.
Sorry this is off-topic, but did anyone see the comments by David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, in today's NYTimes? The quote is:
“It raises questions of whether Iran can operate a modern nuclear reactor safely,” he added. “The stakes are very high. You can have a Chernobyl-style accident with this kind of reactor..."
Can it be true that in this day and age someone is trying to build a Chernobyl-style graphite-moderated reactor for electrical power generation? I know they started in the early 1970s, but I still find it hard to believe.
I remember that this orbiting solar array thing was written about in Poplar Science back in the 60's where microwave arrays quarter of a mile on a side would transmit the microwave energy down to a point on Earth. The density of the energy was low enough for a flock of birds to fly though unharmed.
Recent updates of large scale work underway on Space Based Power in Japan are indeed "bending metal". One immediate goal of Japan's USEF consortium is a trial satellite scheduled for launch in 2016 to test the design. The experiment will be conducted in a room that does not reflect electromagnetic waves to mimic the conditions of space.
If the team succeeds in converting a strong electrical current into microwaves and transmitting them about 10 meters, it will then start work on reducing the weight of the power generation equipment and improving the transmission technology. Their project estimates that "implementing a workable space-based solar power generation system will cost about 2 trillion yen." They expect delivery in 2025.
Solarbird, would be a cluster of 40 200-meter mirrors feeding a sunsat to produce 1 Gigawatt. JAXA and partners at USEF, per info released yesterday, plan a ground SSP test for this spring and practical implementation by 2025. Previous reports had scheduled practical implementation for 2030: Japanese scientists to test space-based power generation
shows what they have in mind. They direct power to a single sat with solar cells and the transmission antenna. You still need a large ~1km (or so) sat for the transmission array.
The space-elevator concept, while still completely blue-sky, would make space-based solar power generation not only feasible but profitable. Materials to build the necesary solar arrays could be lifted for a minute fraction of the cost of chemical rockets, and conductors to bring the resulting electricity down to Earth's surface could be built into the physical structure of the elevator, removing the need for "beaming" the power in any way.
Some of the new automotive construction materials (like the carbotanium fiber used in the new Pagani supercar) show promise by being light and strong enough to begin making the idea of a space elevator more than just a concept.
In my mind, mankind's future in space begins with a way for us to cheaply and reliably lift resources out of the gravity well. Of all the concepts I've researched, the space elevators appear to be the most feasible. I hope there are researchers still working on these ideas.
Space elevators truly are science fiction as materials necessary for their construction have yet to be discovered or even proven if it is physically possible. Yes, I've heard of carbon nanotubes that might possibly become that strong.... maybe if you can grow one to be thousands of miles long without a break. It isn't a trivial problem and the cables to make it work sure aren't going to be made out of steel or common materials we have today.
It isn't merely making something sort of lighter, it is making it lighter by several orders of magnitude that far and away surpasses anything ever even toyed with in a laboratory. What is used for fiber body automobiles still is significantly weaker than what would be needed for a space elevator.
Robert,
My point was that the technology is advancing. I understand the engineering challenges inherent in the concept.
We need to move into space. Now. L-5 awaits.
You forgot L-4, just as good.
I am surprised no one has mentioned the obvious so far - any commercially viable solution would also be a terrifying weapon, not to mention the problems associated with something going wrong and frying Los Angeles by accident.
Launch costs are under assault.
1. SSP will change the launch market by massively increasing the demand for launch to orbit. Greater volume lowers costs - this requires STRONG financing, which so far only the Japanese USEF consortium is equipped to do. Congress should charter a Sunsat Corp to open the power satellite industry as they chartered Comsat Corp in 1962, which built the communications satellite industry.
2. SpaceX is scheduled to begin reusing the first stage of the Falcon-9 next year - fifth launch.
3.Electromagnetic launch will further cut launch costs - The Navy's new Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) completed testing February 10. The U.S. Navy recently made history when it launched the first aircraft using an Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) at the Naval Air Systems Command test site at Navy Lakehurst, part of Joint Base McGuire-Dix- Lakehurst in south central New Jersey.
For more than 50 years the Navy has been using steam to launch aircraft from aircraft carriers, and now the Aircraft Launch and Recovery Equipment program has launched an F/A-18E Super Hornet fighter plane using the new technology that will replace steam catapults on future aircraft carriers.
“This is a tremendous achievement not just for the aircraft launch and recovery equipment team, but for the entire Navy,” said Capt. James Donnelly, program manager.
“The launch demonstrates an evolution in carrier flight deck operations using advanced computer control, system monitoring, and automation for tomorrow’s carrier air wings,” Donnelly said.
This is a complete carrier-based launch system designed for aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford and future Ford-class aircraft carriers.
“I thought the launch went great,” said Lt. Daniel Radocaj, the test pilot from Air Test and Evaluation Squadron 23, who made the first manned launch. “I got excited once I was on the catapult, but I went through the same procedures as on a steam catapult. The catapult stroke felt similar to a steam catapult and [the new system] met all of the expectations I had.”
The mission and function of the new electromagnetic aircraft launch system remain the same as the steam catapult, but the new system employs entirely different technologies and will deliver the necessary higher launch energy capacity as well as substantial improvements in system weight, maintenance, increased efficiency, and more accurate end-speed control.
“I felt honored to be chosen as the ‘shooter’ to help launch the first live aircraft tested on the new electromagnetic aircraft launch system track at Lakehurst,” said Chief Petty Officer Brandon Barr, Lakehurst Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division Test Department. “It was very exciting to knowingly be a part of naval aviation history. Petty Officers 1st Class Hunsaker and Robinson, and Petty Officers 2nd Class Williams, Wong and Simmons were the sailors on my team who worked together to help make this test a success. We all look forward to seeing this cutting-edge technology deployed on the Gerald R. Ford.” Cmdr. Russ McCormack, deputy program manager for future systems, said he was excited about the improvement the new system will bring to the fleet from a capability and reliability perspective,
“[This new system] was designed for just that purpose, and the team is delivering that requirement,” said McCormack.
Director for Support Equipment and Aircraft Launch and Recovery Kathleen Donnelly said that the question “Will the new system work?” has been answered in the affirmative.
“Now we’ll work toward answering the question ‘Will the electromagnetic aircraft launch system be reliable? ’ ” she said. “[I’m sure] that answer will also be a resounding ‘yes.’ ”
The system’s technology allows for a smooth acceleration at high and low speeds, increasing the aircraft carrier’s ability to launch aircraft in support of the war fighter.
The system will provide the capability for launching all current and future aircraft carrier air wing platforms, including lightweight unmanned to heavy strike fighters.
Engineers will continue system functional demonstration testing at the Lakehurst Naval Air Systems Command site. Next year, it is expected that the team will expand aircraft launches with the addition of T-45 and C-2 aircraft.
The economics of launch costs have little to do with the propulsion method involved, nor on the cost of the fuel to get up into space. As I've mentioned elsewhere, the cost of catering meals and other public relations costs to members of the press corps at launch events is more than the cost of the fuel itself on a Shuttle launch... at least for the LOX and H2 that is used for the main engines.
I am fully aware of the efforts by SpaceX and other companies (Armadillo, Masten, Blue Origin, XCor, Copenhagen Suborbital, ARCA, and a great many others) that are all trying hard to reduce the cost of spaceflight. I wish them luck, but part of the problem is trying to find a market to sell their services once they get their vehicles built. Even SpaceX is having a hard time resisting the lure of the government money trough.... which is really what pays for most of the flights into space right now.
There are a limited number of flights into space that are really needed, and most of those real needs for spaceflight really don't matter about the cost. Stuff like weather, reconnaissance, communications, or mapping satellites can afford $10k per kilo to orbit and is a well established market. Anything else is a pipe dream.... including space tourism (about 1-2 flights per year at the moment.... and even that is unpredictable). None of the other potential "markets" for spaceflight can justify the expense and engineering effort of developing a whole new rocket launch system... at least to orbit. Note that the start-ups are all doing sub-orbital flights as there seems to be a real market opportunity there and fits into the budget ranges for people and universities that want access but lack multi-billion dollar budgets for spaceflight. SpaceX is an exception, but they are currently acting more and more like one of the traditional launcher companies such as Boeing and Lockheed-Martin.
Talk is cheap in terms of coming up with alternatives that reduce the cost of spaceflight, but until you can identify a single market that will pay for those launchers that would also expand as the price dropped... you won't see the price of spaceflight drop significantly. Even Robert Bigelow is concentrating on government contracts in terms of trying to sell his equipment for spaceflight.
I just don't see space solar power being a market that could drive the cost of spaceflight down or be the rationale for expending R&D on cheaper launch systems. Any company who significantly reduces the cost of spaceflight does it only to break into the market (such as SpaceX) as any further reduction in prices mostly slits their own throats and reduces profits for these companies... profits that are rather marginal at best anyway in the current economic environment for spaceflight launching companies.
I have a quick point to make regarding energy. We need to work on being able to store as much power as we want and distribute it evenly and effectively. If we could store the power of every lighting strike and every wind and solar plant we wouldnt have to worry about the ups and downs of the output wattage. Think big oil would ever let us get to that point? Reply below...
As I recall the outline of Gerard O’Neil’s proposal back in the seventies, the initial (and significant) cost of launches was to set up the lunar mining facilities, which would be robotic and remotely controlled, use mass drivers to move mined material into lunar orbit for construction of the actual solar stations. The construction of the facilities would not be done on earth, which over the long run would dramatically reduce the number of launches needed for a multi-satellite system. The counterintuitive advantage to the project is that due to its cost commitment and required time frame, only an international joint effort would make it feasible. This would be something new in human history – an expensive long term project over several decades, which would result in an effectively permanent energy solution to benefit everyone – much too “idealistic and naive” for most people to consider. Yes, this would be an expensive undertaking, and it would call for unprecedented international cooperation, but perhaps we should look at the alternatives: The world will run out of fossil and eventually, nuclear fuels. It’s just a matter of time. And nations will continue to engage in conflicts over resources, of which energy is among the most important. Solar stations may not turn out to be the best solution, but all long-term options need to be examined closely. What has turned out to be technically practical today in many areas of human activity would have been inconceivable or dismissed out of hand, a century ago. What we lack more than cheap energy or anything else right now is vision.
Don't need to store SSP because it is 24/7 baseload power. Nearly ten times as much energy is collected at GSO by the same panel as compared to what it would collect on the ground. Also SSP doesn't compete for increasingly scarce water resources and doesn't emit CO2 so it doesn't contribute to climate change. The physics of microwave power transfer requires LARGE 5-10 km diameter receivers which mandates that the power levels are low - less than sunshine. These receivers, or rectennas, are like chicken wire, which means that the land under them can be used to grow crops.
Darel Preble
Space Solar Power Workshop
Wow they are just now trying to figure out how to do what Nikola Tesla was on his way to doing 110 years ago. Funny how far science is behind his genius.
LInked inhas had particularlyvigorus discussionabout the technical aspects of these ideas. People should consult the achieves to follw thediscussion.
Space-based solar power is still in the realm of science fiction. It is not economically feasible and it will never be because Obama will destroy our country before it can ever become feasible. We waste money on such research, we refuse to explore real, existing natural resources because of one-spotted three-legged carimooses, and we flitter away our money after every fad proposed by Cal Tech, Stanford, and MIT. We once could afford to do such stupid things, but no longer. We need to quit educating pie-in-the sky PhDs, with no common sense, totally rebuild our defunct educational system, and start training people to work in the real world. Oh, I forgot. There are no real world jobs, there are no real world students, there are no real world universities, there is no real world government--they have all gone the way of the dodo bird. They are extinct.
George - we are Caltech, not "Cal Tech".
Cheers! ~Michael (AFM*Radio / Astronomy.FM)
No one has mentioned the real issue: Any energy collected in space that is beamed down to Earth is an addition to the total energy/heat the planet receives. Massive amounts of energy = massive amounts of heat. Global Warming, anybody? :-(
I wouldn't call it "massive amounts of heat" Darthdon, for a couple of reasons:
1- It's better than what we are using now - coal - which of course once burned dumps its direct heat into the environment.
B- But unlike coal (and to a lesser degree, natural gas), once the heat from solar has been radiated it is no longer a multiplying factor. CO2, once in the environment, is a gift that keeps on giving. As a greenhouse gas it constantly blankets the Earth, warming the planet much like having a thick quilt on your bed (even tho it's summer and too hot for a blanket).
When compared to coal, only on the basis of "is it warm in here, or is it just me?", orbital solar is great.
However I am not convinced that it is economical (or even remotely close to being economical), and with the solar panels being 1000's of miles away from the Earth, the energy loss will be stupendous.
It's a fun idea, but I don't see it happening for a very long time.
Cheers! ~Michael (AFM*Radio / Astronomy.FM)
Michael - Energy = heat. Simple thermodynamics. The real problem is overpopulation. If the entire world used energy at the rate the developed world does, the heat released would be enormous, no matter where it came from. I would suggest you read 'Why the Sea is Boiling Hot' by George Bamber.
It's still ridiculous that we have the most natural gas in the world, and growing ... and yet we still use foreign oil. Natural gas is clean and we have huge reserves, and we don't need to buy terrorists oil .... yet there still isn't a move to use our own natgas. The jobs it would create here on top of it would be another huge benefit.
Joe-
Your idea sounds wonderful . But there are problems with drilling for natural gas . One I was reading about yesterday . While they want to get out as much natural gas as possibly . They are fracturing the rock , by pumping chemicals down the well . In doing so , they have poisoned some of the ground water , or drinking water . People are not amused when their tap water catches fire , and there is a flame coming out the faucet into the kitchen sink.
T. Boon Pickens was trying to get the nation to go in the direction of natural gas , two years ago .
Back to the subject of the article . I think we need to look closer to the use of solar energy and solar farm on earth . One day we might be beaming energy up into space , not down .
RON
The size of this array would be far too costly. Roughly 1.4kw per meter squared is the Physical limitation of solar panel above the Earth atmosphere. The total direct power that reaches Earth ground is 77% of that, roughly 1075 in optimal conditions.
Seems cost-prohibitive for a 30% increase.
I say we build a giant space elevator and put solar panels on/around it. The solar panels can send their power to the space elevator (either via microwaves, or if they are close enough, by wires). The space elevator can then send the power in the form of AC current down to Earth (I'm guessing that some repeater stations would be needed). The space elevator would kill two birds with one stone. It would provide easy access to space as well as a way to bring the energy down to Earth safely.
You are an idiot.
Alan:
Col. Smith and the other three Caballeros (3 Air force, 1 Marine) worked on their own time to spearhead the project. The National Space Society gave them their 2008 Space Pioneer Award for Space Development in recognition. See them featured on our awards page:
The plain fact is we are using space solar power right now, but we are using it IN space rather than on the ground (all of the current solar powered satellites and probes.).
You can read a detailed article on the comparisons between space solar and ground solar at:
The Journal for Space Communication - issue 16 .
“Space Solar vs. Base Load Ground Solar and Wind Power” , among a lot of other related articles.
We physically can build Space Solar right now, but we cannot afford to launch the equipment,
since the US government has prevented the creation of flyback first stage launchers since it was first possible over 40 years ago and parts of the government from both parties are still trying to stop reductions in space launch costs. Imagine what your airline ticket would cost if you used each airliner just one time and threw it away.
We only need a launch cost reduction about another factor of 2-3 from what SpaceX is charging right now,
to make production of base load electrical power from space competitive with ground solar,
since ground solar needs massive and incredibly expensive storage systems to supply base load , while Space solar needs none. The cost reductions that are possible within a decade will exceed that considerably, and within 2 decades, will exceed it greatly.
Base load is about 2/3 of the total electrical load. How are we going to power all of those electric cars without a new power source?
For those still worried (30 years later) about putting extra energy into the Earths atmosphere, what about the 80% heat energy that black ground solar panels create from sunlight, vs the < 7% of conversion heat from the SSP beam to electricity. With space solar, almost all of the waste heat is radiated harmlessly into space from the satellite itself, instead of directly into the air. The Earth is NOT a closed system. Sunlight, cosmic rays and meteors arrive all the time.
We do need a wide mix of power sources - and should never depend on one single major source.
However, if we want to actually STOP global warming, space solar is one of the few sources with sufficient capacity to do the job.
John Strickland